1

2

JFK ASSASSINATION PARADOXES: A PRIMER FOR BEGINNERS

By David W. Mantik, MD, PhD 1 “A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because

familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth. Authoritarian institutions and marketers have always known this fact.” --Daniel Kahneman (Nobel Laureate), in ‘Thinking, Fast

and Slow.’

AbstractIn the 54 years since November 22, 1963, numerous paradoxes in the JFK assassination have been exposed. Many of these relate to the autopsy, which was performed that same evening. Because of my life in medicine, this review focuses mostly on the medical evidence. These paradoxes are so profound (and remain officially unanswered) that the chief conclusion is inescapable: critical primary evidence items cannot be authentic. This review identifies specific altered evidence. Most supporters of the Warren Commission (WC) fail to acknowledge this corruption of the data base. The disingenuous acceptance of this evidence has led to the misperception that the case is still a mystery. However, once specific items are recognized as fraudulent, it becomes clear that the corrupted evidence was not accidental—and the overall features of the case (for conspiracy) emerge with surprising clarity.

TenMajorParadoxes21. The large hole at the back of JFK’s head. The Parkland medical staff in Dallas, TX—

both nurses and physicians—clearly saw a large, baseball-sized hole at the right rear ofJFK’s head. So also did witnesses in Dealey Plaza. And so did the physicians andparaprofessionals at the Bethesda autopsy.3 Even the autopsy report itself describes theskull defect as extending into the occiput.4 Nonetheless, the official autopsy photographsshow absolutely no hole at the back of the head (Figure 1).

I have listed 15 Parkland physicians who did not recognize the back of the head in the autopsy photographs 5 Robert Groden has shown photographs of many witnesses,6 who point on their own skulls to the site of the large hole—just where nothing abnormal is seen on the autopsy photographs.7

While at the National Archives, I performed stereo viewing of the autopsy photographs.8 This is possible because each view is represented by two separate photographs, taken close together in time and space. Such a pair is what makes stereo viewing possible. I performed this procedure for the original generation of photographs (4” x 5” transparencies), for the color prints, and also for the black and white copies. I did this for many of the distinct views in the collection. But the bottom line is this: the only abnormal site was the back of the head—it always yielded a 2D image, as if each eye had viewed precisely the same image. Of course, that would have been expected if someone (illicitly in a dark room) had inserted the same image into that anatomic site for each member of the photographic pair. I discussed this issue with Robert Groden, who served as the photographic consultant for the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) during 1976-1979. He concurred with my observations, i.e., only the back of the head looked abnormal during his stereo viewing for the HSCA.

(THE MANTIK VIEW)

3

Figure 1. JFK autopsy photographs. I have viewed these many times at the Archives.

The arrow identifies the red spot, which the pathologists did not recognize. Despite that, the HSCA chose that site as their entry wound. It lay almost 4 inches above the

pathologists’ entry site. Although the large posterior hole is often cited as evidence for a frontal shot, a second issue, perhaps equally as important, should not be overlooked: the severe discrepancy between the photographs and the witnesses—all by itself—strongly suggests manipulation of this photograph. In other words, whoever altered this photograph likely recognized that the large posterior defect loudly proclaimed a frontal shot, so much so in fact, that it became critical to cover that hole. Pathologist J. Boswell (many decades later) speculated that the scalp had merely been stretched so as to cover the hole. In fact, to have done so, and to have succeeded so seamlessly, would have defeated the sole purpose of the photographs, which presumably was to capture reality. If ever a photograph existed of this large defect, then that one has disappeared. Some witnesses do recall seeing such a photograph immediately after the autopsy, and we know (from the autopsy photographer himself) that other autopsy photographs have disappeared. Furthermore, we know from Boswell’s sketch on a skull model, that the bone under this apparently intact scalp was in fact missing.9 So which is more decisive: missing scalp—or missing bone? Some have argued that the Parkland physicians have authenticated this photograph, and that we should therefore accept its authenticity. However, what they said was more like this: If the scalp had been stretched in this fashion, then they could not take issue with that photograph. Absent such a peculiar maneuver, however, they were dubious. Their doubt was further accentuated in a very recent documentary: “The Parkland Doctors.”10. Seven Parkland physicians met to discuss their recollections. They were profoundly troubled by autopsy images of the posterior skull. To describe these images, they readily used words like “manipulated” and “altered.”

4

Then there is the matter of a shot from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD). WC’s ballistics expert, Dr. Alfred Olivier, used the Mannlicher-Carcano to shoot at human skulls. Firing from a position above and behind, he aimed at the low occipital entry identified in the autopsy report. This bullet blew out the right side of the face (Figure 2). JFK’s face, by contrast, was untouched.11 The WC, of course, did not attempt a shot from a much lower level (e.g., from the second floor of the Dal-Tex building, directly at the top of Elm St.). Such a shot might have yielded very interesting results, but that shot could not have been tied to Oswald.

Figure 2. The WC tried (but failed) to replicate a shot from above and behind.

Finally, there is even a discrepancy between the two photographs in Figure 1: In one image JFK’s hair appears freshly washed, while the other image shows mangled tissue and blood. The pathologists denied that the hair had been washed, which—all by itself—makes the clean image suspect.

2. The brain photographs disagree radically with the skull X-rays. The brain images (Figure 3) show minimal missing brain tissue—on either the left or right side of the skull. The right side shows trauma, but not much missing tissue.

5

Figure 3. A sketch of JFK’s (purported)brain, as prepared by the HSCA. No actual

photograph is available for the public. Note that the cerebellum (yellow arrow) is intact. However, the skull X-rays (Figure 4) show a very large area of missing brain—on both sides.12

Figure 4. The frontal area (circled in red) is very dark. Virtually no brain tissue exists here—on either side of the skull—as shown by optical density measurements at the Archives. The thin arrow follows the trail of metallic debris. The orange arrow (at the

forehead) locates tiny metallic fragments seen by Michael Chesser, MD. These cannot be appreciated here—or in any public image.

Something is very wrong here. These two image sets really must agree. Because they don’t agree, at least one of them must be inauthentic13 It is the photographic set that is suspect. This is because the autopsy photographer, John Stringer, testified under oath to the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) that both the black and white negatives and the color

6

transparencies of JFK's brain that he exposed (i.e., the brand and two film types) were inconsistent with those in the Archives today.14 His claim was based not only on the type of film used—but was also based on the surviving views of the brain. For example, Stringer recalled that the brain had been sectioned (like a loaf of bread), which is standard procedure, although the brain autopsy report does not describe that. Curiously, Stringer was asked to sign a document (which he did sign) prepared by someone else, which stated that no photographs were missing. When later asked why he had signed a false statement, he explained why.15 This photograph/X-ray paradox is only worsened by the reported brain weight (of 1500 grams). The average brain weighs only about 1350 grams. But here is the real problem: according to chief pathologist James Humes, “Two thirds of right cerebrum had been blown away.”16 Such a major loss of brain tissue was confirmed by many other witnesses—at Parkland and at Bethesda. Furthermore, my own optical density measurements17 (made directly from the extant skull X-rays at the Archives) confirmed that only about 30% of the right brain remained.18 There is yet one more problem: the photographic collection does not match the camera/ lens combination used for the autopsy. After a diligent search through the government bureaucracy for the appropriate camera and lens, that was the official conclusion of the HSCA.19 In view of this indisputable fact, it is difficult to believe that any of these autopsy photographs would be permitted in a court of law. But the actual scenario was even worse than that. The suppressed record tells a different tale. In fact, the camera was found, and the HSCA had actually done corroboration tests—which showed that the camera/lens combination did not match the autopsy photographs. But the HSCA staff elected to hide this information from the public. And—they also withheld it from their forensic consultants! Douglas Horne proposed that two separate brain examinations had been done—on two different dates, for two different audiences, on two different brains. His report became part of the work of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). My optical density data confirmed his conclusions. In other words, the image in Figure 3 cannot be JFK’s brain. See Inside the ARRB (2009), Douglas Horne, Volume III, Chapter 10. Also see Horne’s essay in Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000), edited by James Fetzer. (Incidentally, Joe Riley’s analysis of the brain cannot be relevant, because he assumes that the brain in Figure 3 is JFK’s.) So, like the medical experts on the Clark and Rockefeller panels, these HSCA experts assumed that the photographs were authentic.20 Therefore, anyone (like Robert Wagner in his recent book), who relies on the conclusions of the HSCA panel, and does not reveal the camera/lens issue, is not telling the whole story.

3. The 6.5 mm object on the AP (frontal) X-ray. This object appears to be the cross section of a bullet, which lies within JFK’s right orbit (Figure 5).

7

Figure 5. JFK’s AP (frontal) autopsy X-ray. The arrow identifies the mysterious 6.5 mm

object. The bizarre fact is that no one saw this strange object during the autopsy—even though the sole purpose of the autopsy X-rays was to identify any metal fragments. Not only was it not noticed, but no discussion of this strange feature occurred during the autopsy. Dozens of individuals at the autopsy likely saw these X-rays on a view box, but no one said anything. When asked about it under oath by the ARRB, all three pathologists (independently) denied seeing it.21 It first appeared over four years later in the 1968 Clark Panel Report 22 In 1993 I had two telephone conversations with the autopsy radiologist, John Ebersole, MD (who practiced my own specialty of radiation oncology). The second was recorded and is now at the Archives, although it can be heard online.23 After an introductory conversation about the autopsy, I finally asked him the critical question: What did he think about that 6.5 mm object? And, just like that, the conversation was over! Ebersole never said another word about the autopsy. Oddly enough though, he was adamant that JFK did have a large hole at the back of his skull—just as most witnesses recalled. And he made this claim even though he had seen the X-rays. Who better to confirm that a large posterior hole in the skull was visible—on both the skull and on the X-rays—than the official autopsy radiologist? Although the official investigations regarded this 6.5 mm object as authentic, the ballistics expert for the HSCA (Larry Sturdivan) claimed that he had never seen such an object in thousands of cases over many years.24 Furthermore, the nose and tail of this (supposed) bullet were found inside the limousine, which implies that, in this whimsical scenario, a cross section of metal from inside the bullet was precisely sliced out (and then abruptly stopped right there), while the nose and tail journeyed on through JFK’s brain (presumably exiting near the skull vertex), after which both pieces fell into the limousine. Some have argued that the 6.5 mm object was present on the X-rays at the autopsy, but that it was merely an artifact. If this is true, however, it is inconceivable that no one at the autopsy would have noticed it. After all, the entire purpose of the X-rays was to identify precisely such objects. Furthermore, without prompting—or even a radiology residency—my 7-year-old son and my 5-year-old daughter (independently) were immediately able to identify it. So, this argument is risible; only the sanity of such a proposal can be in doubt. The only credible

8

alternative is the subsequent addition of this object to the frontal X-ray. Ironically, it was not added to the lateral X-rays—and so yet one more paradox was created. Shortly after my initial visits to the Archives, I wrote my seminal paper about this object.25 More recently I published a peer-reviewed paper. 26 My online lectures have described how someone (likely Ebersole himself) used a double exposure in the darkroom to superimpose this 6.5 mm object over JFK’s authentic AP skull X-ray. The result, of course, was to incriminate Oswald. After all, he was located behind JFK, and this object seemed to lie on the back of JFK’s head. Furthermore, its diameter was precisely the same caliber as Oswald’s (purported) 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano. To date, no reasonable objection to my conclusions has appeared anywhere, either unofficially or officially. And no other option has the explanatory power of such a darkroom double exposure. Finally, I was (easily) able to demonstrate the feasibility of such double exposures, as shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6. A double-exposure “bird brain, “by Mantik. The round dark spots represent

multiple myeloma in this anonymous patient. That the 6.5 mm object is a double exposure was obvious during my visits to the Archives. I was then an extreme myopic 27 so that observing this object was like a normal person with a magnifying lens.28 It is not likely that any other inspector of the JFK X-rays at the Archives has ever shared this (serendipitous) extreme nearsightedness with me. In particular, I could readily see additional tiny metal objects inside of this thing (Figure 7). This is only possible if the image is a double exposure—as is often used in Hollywood special effects.29

9

Figure 7. This is my close-up view of the 6.5 mm object, as sketched at the Archives. The ghost images are real metal particles visible right through the 6.5 mm object, i.e.,

they are also visible on the lateral X-ray (where the 6.5 mm object is invisible). In addition, three small metal fragments are seen just inferior to the 6.5 mm object. These

are also likely visible on the lateral X-ray, including some at the rear of the skull. 4. The White Patch. A large white area (especially obvious in prints) appears on JFK’s two

lateral X-rays, as shown in Figure 8. The paradox is that no other patient (in my 46 years since entering medical school) has ever shown anything like this. Furthermore, a pre-mortem X-ray of JFK does not display anything like this either. Dr. Michael Chesser’s optical density measurements, made directly from the pre-mortem X-ray at the JFK library in Boston, likewise conclusively confirm just how bizarre this feature is.

Figures 8A and 8B. On the left is the White Patch, which is seen on both of JFK’s lateral X-rays. Inexplicably, no such dense object is seen on the AP X-ray (Figure 5), nor is it

seen on JFK’s pre-mortem X-ray (on the right here).

10

My optical density values for this White Patch are almost the same as for the petrous bone, which encircles the ear canal (Figure 8A), and which is the densest bone in the body. The conclusion is that a large area over JFK’s posterior skull is almost solid bone—from side to side, i.e., a “bonehead” skull. This is, of course, ridiculous. More likely, someone merely performed another double exposure in the darkroom. It should also be emphasized that, although this White Patch is obvious on both lateral skull X-rays, it is nowhere to be seen on the AP (frontal) skull X-ray. In the physical universe that we know, this is impossible. As I stated during my first public comments on this issue (at a New York press conference in 1993), it would be like missing a tyrannosaurus rex in downtown Manhattan.

5. The T-shaped inscription on the left lateral X-ray. The purpose of this inscription (Figure 9) is unknown, but in any case, that is irrelevant.

Figure 9. The T-shaped inscription on JFK’s left lateral X-ray

Here are what matters. This inscription must have been produced by removing the emulsion from the original film, which is easy to do (e.g., by using a fingernail, or a metal nail, or even a nail file). This missing emulsion would have been easy to detect on the surface of the film, especially while viewing it at an angle to a light source. Inspection of the other side would clearly have shown no missing emulsion. Realizing this, during my final visit to the Archives (April 12, 2001),30 I inspected this area carefully. I first asked Steve Tilley, the JFK archivist, to remove the X-ray from its transparent plastic sheath so that I could view the surfaces directly. He did so. And then I saw that no emulsion was missing from either side of the film! The conclusion was obvious: this could only be a copy film—not an original. That is because the copy film would preserve the image of the T inscription, but it would also retain its own emulsion (on both sides)—because no one had scraped emulsion off the (double emulsion) copy film. So, why does it matter if this is a copy? Here is the answer: if an X-ray can be copied, then it can also be altered—via a double exposure in the darkroom. And that is almost certainly how the 6.5 mm object got there. This process also explains the White Patch. See my online lecture for the rather simple steps in such a procedure.31

6. Small metallic particles are visible near JFK’s forehead on the lateral skull X-rays. (See the orange arrow in Figure 4.) I have long noted that the metallic trail of debris (across

11

the top of the skull—see Figure 4) seems to enter from the front, not from the rear. However, government investigations have refused even to consider such a frontal shot. Nonetheless, many small fragments lie much closer to the front than to the rear, which is consistent with a frontal shot. Furthermore, the largest metal fragment lies at the posterior end of the trail (at the blue arrowhead in Figure 4)—which is exactly what one would expect—because larger fragments travel farther (they have greater momentum). But the final proof occurred recently via an Archives visit by Michael Chesser, MD, a neurologist. He observed many tiny particles just inside the skull at the forehead—and also a hole in the skull consistent with the passage of a bullet precisely at this site. Chesser’s main lecture can be found online. 32 Based on these observations, a frontal shot is not merely likely, but virtually certain. Furthermore, since Oswald could not have scampered to the front so quickly, a conspiracy becomes inevitable.

7. The Magic Bullet.33 The remarkable trajectory for this bullet (Figure 11) was concocted to explain how seven wounds (cumulative) in JFK and John Connally were caused by a single bullet. The WC admitted that the lone gunman had time for only three shots: they said that one shot missed, and one shot struck JFK’s head. That left seven wounds to be explained by the third bullet; that one (purportedly) passed through JFK’s neck, through Connally’s chest, through Connally’s wrist, and then stopped in his leg. The (supposed) bullet that emerged was only slightly deformed (Figure 10).

Figure 10. The Magic Bullet

The problem, as I have demonstrated in Figure 11, is that CT scans were not available in 1963—or this fantasized trajectory would have been dead on arrival.34

12

Figure 11. Purported trajectory of bullet (red line) through JFK’s chest.

If this trajectory is valid, the bullet would either have struck a vertebral body (as it does in figure 11), or if traveling between vertebral bodies (e.g., at a higher or lower level), it would have punctured the lung, which did not occur. The trajectory of the Magic Bullet is also very unlikely in the vertical plane—the entry point is far too superior to exit at the wound on JFK’s back (which is near T1—or possibly even lower). In particular, the throat wound lay just above the necktie, which is far above T1 35 Also recall that the bullet, presumably from a Mannlicher-Carcano on the sixth floor of the TSBD, was traveling downward. Charles Crenshaw, MD, has reported, and demonstrated on a video interview, that the neck wound lay above the necktie.36 Ronald C. Jones, MD, has confirmed this same location in a professional journal: “I noticed a small wound in the midline of the neck just above [emphasis added] the tie knot that was approximately a quarter of an inch or 6 mm in diameter.”37 The location of the throat wound is a very big deal: if Drs. Jones, Crenshaw, and Carrico are correct, then the single bullet theory—the sine qua non for the lone gunman—is as dead as Arlen Specter (its inventor). Finally, it is illuminating that even Robert Frazier, the FBI expert, stated: “I could not actually determine from the characteristics of the hole [in the shirt collar] whether or not it was caused by a bullet.38 At the news conference at Parkland Hospital, Malcolm Perry stated three times that JFK’s throat wound was an entry. Unfortunately, (for the truth), Perry later refused to repeat this for the WC. But recent JFK releases include a statement from Perry’s surgical colleague at the University of Washington. Perry had admitted to Dr. Donald Miller, Jr., that he had told the truth on

13

November 22, 1963 (it was an entry wound), but then later (under pressure) he had lied to the WC.39 To make matters even worse, my colleague, Michael Chesser, MD, an expert witness at the recent Mock Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald,40 related what another of Perry’s medical colleagues had told him. Just one month before this mock trial, Dr. Austin Griner had told Dr. Chesser41 that federal agents had threatened Perry (born in Allen, Texas) with deportation if he did not reverse his initial report of an entrance wound. WC supporters persistently claim that ER doctors often misinterpret wounds (e.g., confusing exit for entrance) but this obfuscation evades these facts:

A. Such a tiny exit wound could not be duplicated in experiments by the WC; B. Milton Helpern, who had done 60,000 autopsies, had never seen an exit wound

that small; C. Before political leverage was exerted, the first scenario by the CIA’s National

Photographic and Interpretation Center (NPIC) included a throat shot at Z-190 42; D. During a WC Executive Session (December 18, 1963), John McCloy, Hale Boggs,

and Gerald Ford discussed a possible frontal shot from the overpass. 8. Falsehoods in the Oswald evidence. As merely one example, I focus here on Oswald’s

purported weapon, the 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano. Almost certainly Oswald did not fire a weapon that day, and it is most likely that he did not even own the Mannlicher-Carcano.43

The WC states that Oswald used a coupon from the February 1963 issue of The American Rifleman. (But this ad does not appear in the WC.) The ad is for a 36-inch Carcano carbine weighing 5.5 pounds. The weapon in evidence (at the Archives) is 40 inches long and weighs 8 pounds (with sling and gunsight). Further, when the HSCA interviewed the gunsmith at Klein's (the sales office in Chicago), he said they placed scopes on the 36-inch model, but not on the 40-inch model. Yet the rifle in the Archives has a scope on it. So how did that happen? The first weapon reported in the TSBD was a 7.65 mm German Mauser. Eugene Boone filed two separate reports to this effect, and Seymour Weitzman filed a confirming affidavit. Boone later testified that Captain Fritz and Lt. Day also identified it as a Mauser. The weapon in evidence, however, clearly reads "Made in Italy" and "Cal, 6.5." So, if the police can read, how could they file those affidavits? Furthermore, no one has explained why a wannabe assassin would purchase a weapon by money order through the mail – instead of paying cash locally (with no trace of ownership). Even worse, on the supposed purchase date (March 12, 1963), Oswald was at work from 8 AM to 12:15 PM. (See Harvey and Lee by John Armstrong for company employee records.) If the post office records can be believed, Oswald walked 11 blocks to the General Post Office, purchased a money order, but then did not mail it from there. Instead, he walked many blocks out of his way (eventually using a mailbox) before returning to work, where his absence was not noted. This order then arrived the very next day at Klein's (in Chicago) – and was already deposited at the bank that same day. Unfortunately, the bank deposit reads February 15, 1963 – not March 13, 1963! Of course, if the month really had been February, then the serial number C2766 could not apply to the weapon in the backyard photographs.44

14

Of course, the point of the Oswald forgeries was simply to make him appear guilty. As he ultimately recognized, he had been played as a “patsy.” In fact, the fingerprints of an intelligence operation appear throughout his record.45 But this gets even worse. CE-399 (the magic bullet) is almost certainly not the bullet that was found at Parkland hospital. Josiah Thompson and Gary Aguilar, MD, have almost certainly disposed of this issue. Even its finder, Darrell Tomlinson, when asked about his discovery, told Arlen Specter, “I’m going to tell you all I can, and I’m not going to tell you something I can’t lay down and sleep at night with either.”46 Josiah Thompson, after analyzing testimony with pictures, witness sketches, emergency room rosters, and a map, concluded that CE-399 was found on the stretcher of a young boy named Ronald Fuller.47 This amazing tale does not even stop there. John Hunt, in a brilliant essay,48 has illustrated the French farce associated with the receipt of this bullet at the FBI—critical initials on the bullet are missing, and the times of receipt suggest magical time travel. It is likely that two bullets found their way to Washington, DC, that day—CE-399 (of unknown origin) and a quite-different (pointed-tip) bullet from Parkland Hospital. CE-399 was tied to Oswald, while the pointed one simply vanished. There is one last issue. Marine Colonel Allison Folsom, testifying before the WC,49

characterized Oswald (while he was a Marine and used a Marine-issued M-1) as "a rather poor shot." Between May 8, 1959, and November 22, 1963, despite diligent efforts by the FBI, no evidence was ever unearthed to show that Oswald fired a weapon during those 1,600+ days.50 Yet on November 22, using a far inferior weapon, he was supposedly peerless.

9. The alteration of the Zapruder film. The initial clue to its alteration was the limousine stop. The Zapruder film does not show such a stop, but the ten closest witnesses all recalled such a stop.51 Altogether, over 50 witnesses recalled a stop. Even early articles often take this stop for granted.52

The pre-eminent authority on the Z-film is John Costella, a PhD physicist with special expertise in the properties of light.53 He is also highly skilled at detecting optical distortions produced via imaging transformations, a skill that is directly pertinent to the Zapruder film. 54 As a simple demonstration (Figure 12), Costella notes the impossible features of Z-232 (i.e., frame 232 of the Zapruder film), which was originally published in LIFE’s 1963 Memorial Edition55 Costella explains that stationary objects should be blurred by the same amount (as one another), while uniformly moving objects should be consistently blurred by a different (but self-consistent) amount. In Z-232, however, this blurring is grossly inconsistent, which could only occur if this frame had been altered.56

15

Figure 12. Costella’s demonstration of the physical unreality of Z-232. See the Great

Zapruder Film Hoax for further details. In 1975, Rockefeller Commission documents (notes made by the CIA's technical staff at NPIC) showed that NPIC had possessed the film the weekend of the assassination. However, it was unclear for decades whether the CIA at NPIC had copied the film as a motion picture (and possibly altered it), or had simply made prints. Douglas Horne, chief analyst for military records on the staff of the ARRB, interviewed the two NPIC staff members who created some of these NPIC notes, and determined that they had only made inter-negatives and blow-up prints of individual frames, and had not copied the film as a motion picture.57 In 2009, researcher/author Peter Janney located the NPIC official and briefing-board czar, Dino Brugioni, and then Janney and Horne together queried Brugioni about his own involvement with the Z-film during that weekend.58 It turned out that the two NPIC officials interviewed by Horne in 1997 were part of a second Z-film event at NPIC that same weekend (on Sunday night, November 24), but that Brugioni had been in charge of the first Z-film event (the prior evening, on Saturday night, November 23). The ARRB had not known that there had been two events. Brugioni and his team examined the original, unaltered film at the first event (and made blowup prints from individual frames); the second "briefing board" event, the next night, involved a different team of workers at NPIC, who made blowup prints of an altered Z-film. Horne's interviews in 1997 for the ARRB revealed that the Z-film delivered to NPIC for the second event had been created (i.e., altered) at Kodak's primary research and development facility, "Hawkeyeworks," in Rochester, N.Y., during a 12-hour period during Sunday, November 24, 1963. Because the CIA had a longstanding contractual relationship with Kodak at Hawkeyeworks, it is likely that Kodak performed these Z-film alterations at the behest of the CIA.59 The existence of two separate (fully compartmentalized) events, just one day apart, with neither group aware of the other one, very strongly implies an intelligence operation. Brugioni initially (to his utter amazement) had not known about this second event, as he had attended only the first event.60 Furthermore, he believes that the extant Z-film is not the film he saw.61 Early viewers of the original film had seen evidence for multiple shots 62—clearly more than admitted by the WC—so these subsequent alterations were essential for the official WC conclusion of

16

only three shots (all by Oswald, they said). In short, if the Z-film had not been altered, it would have been obvious that the WC’s scenario (of only three shots) was a myth. But there is even more. The Black Patch over the back of JFK’s head is grossly (even preposterously) apparent in a copy of the Z-film obtained directly from the Archives by Sydney Wilkinson. This is a US government authorized and certified, third generation, 35 mm, dupe negative of the “forensic version” of the Zapruder film. Figure 13 is an image from Z-317, as supplied here by Thom Whitehead, Wilkinson’s husband.63

Figure 13. This is Z-317, from the film purchased from the Archives by Wilkinson. She and I (simultaneously at the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas) have seen this same frame

(on a film set copied directly from the extant film at the Archives), where the Black Patch was even more grossly obvious.

Moreover, many independent observers—Greg Burnham, Milicent Cranor, Scott Myers, Dan Rather, Cartha DeLoach, William Reymond, William Manchester, Homer McMahon, Dino Brugioni, Erwin Schwartz, Rich Delarosa,64 and others—have seen a different version of the Zapruder film. Each one of these, without conferring with anyone else, recalls a version that is clearly different from the extant one. Furthermore, their observations (of details missing from the extant film) are consistent with one another. As a further clue to the history of this puzzle, David Lifton will suggest (in his forthcoming book) that Robert S. McNamara probably approved the Z-film alteration.65

17

Finally, during the banquet at the recent Mock Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald (November 16, 2017), Alec Baldwin (who had prepared a JFK program for NBC—which they cancelled), reported that the Kennedy family believes that the Zapruder film has been altered.66 As a participant, is it possible that Jackie knew what really happened that day in Dealey Plaza? In my work, I discuss one of her chief recollections—which is totally inconsistent with the extant film—but which agrees with another witness (William Manchester) who had seen the original film 75 times.67

10. The disagreement between Z-312 and the lateral skull X-rays. This refers to the clash of images between JFK’s head orientation in Z-312 (which purportedly shows the final head shot) versus the gross misfit of this orientation to the metallic trail on the autopsy X-rays.

Z-312 (Figure 14A) shows JFK’s head orientation during the (supposed) final head shot.

Figures 14A and 14B. The left image is Z-312. The right image was produced by the WC— to explain their single head shot scenario (i.e., the posterior shot via the dotted line). The solid red arrow shows the expected horizontal trajectory for a typical frontal

shot that enters near the hairline at Z-312. It is a gross mismatch to the metallic trail (in yellow) on the X-rays. The red arrow is duplicated on the right, just to illustrate its

absurdity. The yellow trail (which must be authentic, as it is seen on the X-rays) could not have resulted from a frontal shot at Z-312; instead it must have occurred when JFK

was more nearly erect, well after Z-312. Nor can a posterior shot (as in the WC scenario) explain the yellow arrow trajectory. For the WC scenario to work (reverse the

direction of the yellow arrow) the gunman must have been floating in a balloon high above Dealey Plaza.

If the metallic trail (yellow arrow) is accepted, as it must be (since the trail on the X-rays could not be removed), then a frontal shooter must have fired from inside the limousine, shooting from well below JFK’s head. Of course, this is nonsense. Or, if one prefers a posterior shooter (for the yellow trail), she (or he) must have been in a hot air balloon, hovering well above Dealey Plaza. Of course, these paradoxes were almost inevitable; after all, the (federally paid) felons who altered the Z-film had no access to the X-rays during their work. The solution to the paradox is simple: the final head shot did not occur at Z-312. It must have occurred noticeably later. This scenario is discussed in detail in my e-book: JFK’s Head Wounds.68 I first illustrated this paradox decade ago (in the 1990s), but virtually no one has paid attention—possibly because

18

the X-ray evidence is assumed to be inscrutable by most researchers. Unfortunately, (for them), it does matter.

SummaryThe following items have been altered: the autopsy skull X-rays (the White Patch and the 6.5 mm object), the autopsy photographs (e.g., the back of the head), many Oswald items, and the Zapruder film. If these changes had not been made—especially the posterior skull photographs—conspiracy would have been obvious to one and all. Therefore, the conspirators really had no choice: they could either let the data tell the truth—or else undertake a widespread cover-up. For them, the latter choice was inevitable. And they did succeed. After all, even though their work was not perfect, it was good enough that their deception succeeded for well over 50 years. In fact, it only needed to work for the first few years. It was only with the first public showing of the Zapruder film (March 6, 1975) by Robert Groden and Dick Gregory on the Geraldo Rivera show69— (“Goodnight America”) that the public became concerned. Now we know much, much more—thanks to legions of dedicated American citizens, mostly not on the federal payroll. In those early years, aside from the Oswald evidence, virtually no one challenged the authenticity of the other evidence. Even today, despite the overwhelming evidence for these deceptions, even many WC skeptics still cannot accept X-ray alteration. And even more WC skeptics still find Z-film alteration intolerable. But the logical reply to these skeptics is obvious: If you accept that set A of the evidence (e.g., the Oswald items) has been altered, why do you find it so difficult to believe that sets B, C, and D have also been altered? And, of course, the corollary is this: If you believe that the evidence is chaste and unadulterated, how then do you explain all of these paradoxes? After all, this disparate collection of evidence is surely the most prolific and profound of any murder case in history.

19

Notes1. After a PhD in physics from the University of Wisconsin, I traveled to Stanford for a postdoctoral

fellowship, and then I joined the Michigan physics faculty. Some years later I completed medical school at Michigan, and subsequently become board certified in radiology via the USC post-graduate program. I have now practiced radiation oncology over 37 years.

2. See “The Chasm that Divides the Partisans,” in my essay for Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000), edited by James Fetzer, p. 220.

https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Murder_In_Dealey_Plaza.pdf, p. 199. 3. https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf 4. https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Murder_In_Dealey_Plaza.pdf, p. 240. Although the

exact words of these 15 vary from one another the overall impression is clearly one of bewilderment. Further discussion follows below.

5. The Killing of a President, Robert Groden (1993), pp. 86-88. These photographs also appear in the Preface to my e-book: JFK’s Head Wounds, available at Amazon.

6. JFK: Absolute Proof, The Killing of a President, Robert Groden (2013), contains an even more current collection of photographs.

7. Twenty Conclusions after Nine Visits” [to the Archives]: https://assassinationresearch.com/v2n2/pittsburgh.pdf

8. See photographs, in Figure 8B of my e-book, JFK’s Head Wounds, of this skull model (located at the Archives).

9. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AN6WXERsEKE 10. https://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0440b.htm 11. See my “Twenty Conclusions after Nine Visits” [to the Archives]:

https://assassinationresearch.com/v2n2/pittsburgh.pdf 12. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/stringer.htm 13. Gunn (ARRB counsel): “When you signed this document, exhibit 78, were you intending to either

agree or disagree with the conclusion reached in the second to last – next to last sentence?” Stringer: “I told him that I disagreed with him, but they said, ‘Sign it.’ “Gunn: “And who is ‘they’ who said, ‘Sign it.’? Stringer: “Captain Stover.” [Stringer’s superior, the Commanding Officer of U.S. Naval Medical School.] (ARRB Deposition of John T. Stringer, July 6, 1996, pp. 136-137) Although Gunn did not immediately pursue this, later in this same interview Stringer conceded, “You don’t object to things.” And Gunn responded, “Some people do.” “Yeah, they do.” Stringer observed, “But they don’t last long.” (Ibid., p. 155)

14. http://www.nytimes.com/1992/05/20/us/doctors-affirm-kennedy-autopsy-report.html?pagewanted=all and https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/397439 (especially p. 2798--about the missing cerebrum) and https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/397452

15. https://kennedysandking.com/content/author/295-davidmantik. For the history of optical density in radiology, see Appendix 10 in my review of John McAdams:

16. https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/mcadams-john-jfk-assassination-logic-how-to-think-about-claims-of-conspiracy-1

17. Paradoxes of the JFK Assassination: The Brain Enigma” by David W. Mantik and Cyril H. Wecht. This appears in an anthology, The Assassinations: Probe Magazine on JFK, MLK, RFK and Malcolm X (2003), edited by James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease (available at Amazon).

18. “How Five Investigations into JFK’s Medical Autopsy Got It Wrong” (2003), Gary L. Aguilar, MD and Kathy Cunningham (now Evans):

19. https://www.historymatters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_5.htm

20

20. Ibid., Section V. 21. http://www.journals.ke-i.org/index.php/mra/article/view/177 22. https://archive.org/details/nsia-AutopsyJFKClarkMedicalPanelReport1968 23. http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/5/5d/ARRB_Ebersole-Mantik.mp3 The transcription is

in Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000), edited by James Fetzer, p. 433. 24. The JFK Myths (2005), Larry Sturdivan, p. 193. 25. https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Assassination_Science.pdf, p. 120. 26. http://www.journals.ke-i.org/index.php/mra/article/view/177 27. I was at nearly -9 diopters. “High” myopia is usually considered beyond -6, so I was well past

that threshold. The prevalence of high myopia in the US is 0.5 - 2.5%, so my extreme myopia was obviously very rare. My close-up vision was also useful for removing splinters from my children’s fingers. They never had to visit their mother, who directed the emergency department. By the time of my final visit to the Archives (2001), I had had Lasik surgery, so I’d lost this advantage. “The [superposition] effect is that of a ‘phantom’ or ‘ghost’ image, in which [real] background detail is seen through the superimposed image...” –The Technique of Special Effects (1965), Raymond Fielding, p. 71. The explanation for these additional tiny fragments is not trivial, but is not discussed further here. It should be emphasized though that no official investigation ever confronted them. Both Michael Chesser, MD, and I have been denied further access to the JFK X-rays at the Archives, despite detailed descriptions of our goals—and even though 17 years have elapsed since my last visit. Especially due to Chesser’s observations of tiny metal fragments near JFK’s forehead, such a visit is now essential. Qualified individuals should apply.

28. https://www.assassinationscience.com/JFK_Skull_X-rays.htm. For a correction, see: http://assassinationofjfk.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Correction-David-Mantik.pdf.

29. http://assassinationofjfk.net/a-review-of-the-jfk-cranial-x-rays-and-photographs/ 30. I have examined this bullet, and all of the other autopsy materials, at the Archives. 31. This image appears in Cover-up (1998) by Stewart Galanor 32. See “The Throat Wound” in my review of John McAdams at:

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/mcadams-john-jfk-assassination-logic-how-to-think-about-claims-of-conspiracy-1. Especially note the comments of Dr. Charles Carrico to the WC. Also see Inside the Assassination Records Review Board (2009), Douglas Horne, Volume IV, pp. 1074-1079.

33. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPcH1RNMC6M 34. “The President’s Been Shot and They Are Bringing Him to the Emergency Room,” Journal of the

American College of Surgeons, Volume 218, Issue 4, pp. 856-868, April 2014. 35. http://www.journalacs.org/article/S1072-7515(14)00108-2/abstract 36. Testimony of Robert Frazier A. Frazier to the WC:

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/frazr2.htm 37. http://crosscut.com/2017/11/john-f-kennedy-assassination-files-seattle-trump-release-shooters/ 38. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bH_r1uDCa88 39. On the first day of the Mock Trial, Dr. Chesser telephoned Dr. Griner, who agreed that Chesser

could disclose his name during the Trial. 40. This is frame 190 of the Zapruder film. 41. The diverse arguments for this conclusion are truly dazzling and overwhelming. The reader is

referred to the exhaustive work (Harvey and Lee) by John Armstrong. An easier approach is via Reclaiming Parkland (2013) by James DiEugenio (especially Chapter 4, pages 56-63). And then there is David Josephs, who has also done heroic work on these issues: https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/oswald-on-november-22-1963.

21

42. https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/cold-case-jfk-vs-cold-hard-jfk-facts] 43. For further enlightenment on Oswald’s role, see item 12 in my review of Robert Wagner’s book

at my website: http://themantikview.com 44. 6H134; this is volume 6, p. 134 of the associated WC volumes. 45. Six Seconds in Dallas (1967), pp. 154-165. Cf. “The Magic Bullet: Even More Magical Than We

Knew?” by Gary Aguilar and Josiah Thompson at: https://www.historymatters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm

46. http://jfklancer.com/hunt/phantom.htm 47. Folsom AG: Testimony of Allison G. Folsom, Lt. Col., USMC (before the WC) 48. (https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh8/pdf/WH8_Folsom.pdf). 49. For comparison, US involvement in World War II was about 1340 days 50. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_lengths_of_United_States_participation_in_wars). 51. https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Murder_In_Dealey_Plaza.pdf, p. 341. 52. Ibid., p. 325. 53. https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/6j4655/this_talk_by_john_costella_about_the_z

apruder/ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1B3_sICTAc 54. The Great Zapruder Film Hoax: Deceit and Deception in the Death of JFK (2003), edited by

James Fetzer. 55. My mother had saved a copy, so I had ready access to this issue. 56. The Great Zapruder Film Hoax: Deceit and Deception in the Death of JFK (2003), edited by

James Fetzer, p. 22. 57. Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000), edited by James Fetzer, “Interviews with Former NPIC

Employees” by Douglas Horne, p. 311. 58. Inside the ARRB (2009), Douglas Horne, Volume IV, Chapter 14. 59. http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/7264.html 60. See Shane O'Sullivan’s documentary, "The Zapruder Film Mystery" (which includes the 2011

Brugioni interview), to assess Brugioni's credibility and his reactions to first learning about the second Z-film event (https://vimeo.com/102327635).

61. Doug Horne interviews legendary NPIC photo interpreter Dino Brugioni (2016): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pZIJRtSqHk

62. https://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Murder_In_Dealey_Plaza.pdf, p. 311. 63. Whitehead: “It’s the same 3rd gen dupe neg film element we’ve always had; however, we scanned

it at 4k with 16-bit color depth to show more color differential.” 64. Delarosa offers his personal descriptions of the action here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrRbkY9gEnQ. 65. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMblToYoWzA 66. http://theindicter.com/assessing-new-jfk-records-alec-baldwins-slam-of-nbc-cover-up/ 67. The Manchester Affair (1967), John Corry, p. 45. 68. Such a shot, distinctly after Z-313, is consistent with the surveyors’ data tables (which appear in

the WC Report), with Secret Service re-enactment photographs in Dealey Plaza, and with a WC sketch—of Dealey Plaza—showing just such a shot. It is also consistent with the recollections of many, many witnesses. The fantasy of a final shot at Z-312 has been touted for so long that nearly everyone now accepts it without thinking. Nonetheless, it is a myth. See my e-book for further discussion of these issues—and review the opening quotation above.

69. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxCH1yhGG3Q